Using your example of purchasing Oscar Meyer fun snack; I guess a Ne-dom could ask me if I wanted to purchase some, and I would say no. To which the Ne-dom asks me why, and I give a rough outline why I don't want it. Then the Ne-dom persistently keeps trying to convince me to buy the Oscar Meyer fun snack, coming up with different justifications, a new one everytime I say no and give some answer to each reason.

Originally Posted by teslashock

+1

So true. And we know it, on some level, yet we can't stop. We know that someone telling us that they don't want an Oscar Meyer fun snack really does mean that they don't want an Oscar Meyer fun snack. We've learned that through past social interactions revolving around similar scenarios, but that doesn't really matter to Ne.

Ne just won't accept the fact that Ne can't always change things. Past experience, showing that Ne doesn't work in that past situation, isn't enough evidence for an Ne dom to accept that Ne's approach won't work in a new situation that's similar to the past one. Ne doesn't learn from its mistakes. It's a rough cycle.

This was interesting. For me-NeFi-the split second I observe that the other person is uncomfortable or has strong "feelings" about a topic, via body language or tone of voice, I yield. I would not force them to modify those opinions. My Ne doesnt change how an individual "feels" about a topic (Fe/Fi). I respect that.

However I will tend to try and change authoritarian rules in a system (Te) to become more individualistic (NeFi)in nature-ie enfps fight "the man". And yes eventually after doing this for awhile I eventually figured out the hard way that some rules dont need to be changed. They are actually beneficial and are of value.

So Ne forges on with Xi's agenda in spite of the tert function telling us it is a bad idea....